LDD vs MLCad

[mmcb]

Having used MLCad for years now, it has become the program I know and love to use when I just don't have the time to pull out my actual bricks. But I've been reading a lot about LDD and it got me thinking about whether or not I should switch over to it.....or atleast give it a go.

However, I'm curious as to what other MLCad users think about LDD. Is it better, or just different? Are there the same number of parts and colours available? What kind of learning curve was there to change over to LDD? Basically.......is it worth the time and effort making the change and learning this new piece of software, when MLCad already does what I need?

MMCB

[Calabar]

I think it is just different!

LDD is easy to use, fun, simple.

The brick palette is limited (but wide thanks to Extended Mode) and it is not possible to add bricks or decorations.

Only legal connections are recognized by the software, so it is difficult to apply advanced build technique.

The learning curve is very fast.

If you want to use MLCAD palette (and files) with a software similar (but more complex) to LDD, you could try SR3DBuilder, that offers many advanced features such as animations, pneumatics and use of flexible elements.

[Ralph_S]

Having used MLCad for years now, it has become the program I know and love to use when I just don't have the time to pull out my actual bricks. But I've been reading a lot about LDD and it got me thinking about whether or not I should switch over to it.....or atleast give it a go.

However, I'm curious as to what other MLCad users think about LDD. Is it better, or just different? Are there the same number of parts and colours available? What kind of learning curve was there to change over to LDD? Basically.......is it worth the time and effort making the change and learning this new piece of software, when MLCad already does what I need?

MMCB

Which is better probably depends on what you want to do with it.

I gave LDD a brief spin a while ago and I think it's easier to use than MLCad. However, I use a lot of old parts that are no longer in production in my models and LDD (obviously) doesn't do those. Also, one of the reasons why I use CAD in the first place is to make instructions. LPUB (which works with LDRAW) is brilliant at this. There's no LDD equivalent. The big drawback to MLCad that I see is that the learning curve is pretty steep, but once you've got the hang of it (as you apparently do) there's no reason that I see why you should switch.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Fallenangel]

I'm pretty sure I've seen another thread like this. Give me a minute...

EDIT: And apparently I was wrong. In that case, I'll throw in my two cents. If someone is more accustomed to MLCad I can't help but think they would find LDD rather simplified - all attachments are via drag-and-drop, and only if they're legal at that, meaning commonly used techniques such as wedging plates between studs and studs into pin receptacles are impossible. On top of that - and please don't think I'm bashing the program here, I like it and use it - LDD tends to remove certain elements during parts updates, meaning that important portions of any saved MOCs you have may be missing after a recent update. Which reminds me - MLCad has a larger parts inventory, including some very unique or obscure elements (printed tile from 4487, anyone?)

Of course, LDraw parts updates make even less sense than the LDD updates because they consist mainly of adding more of said obscure pieces. And the wider versatility in parts usage means you could accidently have parts melding into each other or floating during a build and not realize it (which leads to problems down the road).

Edited August 14, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Phantom59]

LDD has some good points. but in a pinch I prefer LDraw it's slower then LDD but it has some good points

LDraw has more bricks and you don't have the problem of brick placement (eg a brick sitting on a tile )

[xSergio74]

Hi,

the usage of these two programs depends on what you are going to do:

- If you need something to play for fun, then LDD is the best choice

- If you need something allowing you to project models, creating renders and/or good instructions, then MLCad is a must.

Anyway, as told by someone early in this topic, you can also use SR3DBuilder as editor. It uses the SAME part library used by MLCad and also the file format is nearly the same (you can exchange model files between the two programs) so all MLCad additional utilities are still usable.

The advantage of SR3DBuilder is a pretty good 3D user interface, not as simple as LDD, but by far much more rich in functionalities, starting from its ability to reproduce animation of even complex technic schemas.

It worth a try...

Sergio

[Shroud]

I used MLCad for a very long time and the moment I switched over I found it more beneficial as the inter connectivity in LDD was awesome. Projects that were taking a while suddenly became easy to finish and you don't have the problem of alignment either. There is a project out there making user able to convert files from one to the other but its still not complete.

So my verdict is Both are great I just prefer LDD

[alienwar9]

I tried out all 3 programs, and though I probably didn't give either MLCad or SR3DBuilder enough time to get used to, I have to say that building with LDD is the faster method, which is useful if you want to test things. It's really useful for trying out different styles, techniques, color schemes, etc and also for any big creations you want visualized in a program (though LDD has limits too ). I've had problems with the other 2 programs in trying to create anything of really large size without them really slowing down or not working. It's an incredibly fast process, if only because it has the 3D interface and 1-click connection detection placement.

That said, SR3DBuilder is incredibly useful if you need more bricks, or use more non-conventional or illegal techniques. As stated its animation features are a HUGE plus, and there are tons of incredibly useful tools (such as my favorite, mirror).

But I will say, MLCad, if you are used to it, will probably serve you best in the end.

LDD is super easy to pick up, so I'd say try it out, and use it whenever you want to do something fast, or build something really big (I've managed to get 20-40,000 pieces working), and keep MLCad as your standard use program. Use LDD to test ideas, test the look of a creation, etc. It's very useful if you are not a "first try's perfect" builder.

I personally use SR3DBuilder to test out the functionality of my builds, using the animation features to see if what I built in LDD actually works. But the only reason I don't use it is because I'm used to LDD and I need to run large builds. So if you try LDD and like the 3D environment, transition to SR3DBuilder. If you still prefer MLCad, just keep both programs for occasional builds and such.

Hope my opinion helps!

[jasonsmith]

I am quite new to LDD and experienced with MLCad. So far I am liking LDD quite a bit. It's simplicity by far is it's best attribute, the fact that it's actively being developed is another huge plus. One can only hope that TLG is going to make it more advanced for us power users while keeping it simple for the youngsters.

I'm trying to use LDD as much as possible and only going to MLCad for serious mods.